Uptake and Evaluation of a Crosslinguistic Nonword Repetition Test in Clinical and Research Contexts.
Kamila Polišenská, Shula Chiat
PMID 42593823WHAT IT FOUND
A survey of 109 users of the Crosslinguistic Nonword Repetition Test found 92% considered it useful, mostly for screening multilingual children for DLD.
It still lacks norms and practical guidance, so treat it as one part of a battery, not a standalone diagnosis.
Key findings
0172% (78/109) of those who had requested the CL-NWR had actually used it, with uptake spread across 32 of the 36 countries where it was requested.
0292% (69/75) of users said the CL-NWR made a useful contribution to their assessment; the most common reasons were contribution to a research study (68%, 47/69), indicating strengths or limitations in phonological processing and memory (58%, 40/69), and indicating risk of DLD (54%, 37/69).
03The most common request for future support was access to case studies or examples (62 respondents), followed by scoring examples or templates (57 respondents) and online training or video demonstrations (40 respondents).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample is self-selected: only people who had already requested the CL-NWR could respond, so they are likely to be more positive than the general clinician population. 91% were researchers/academics and/or SLTs, and about half held a doctoral degree; the views of less experienced or school-based clinicians are underrepresented. The test has no norms or validated cut-offs, so the positive user feedback cannot be read as evidence of diagnostic accuracy. One survey question about use with specific populations had a display error that was fixed mid-survey, reducing the number of responses for that item to 26. The survey is anonymous, so non-responders could not be characterised; the 70% response rate does not guarantee the respondents are representative of all who received the invitation. The authors developed the CL-NWR, so their framing of the results is inherently favourable to the tool they created.
Declared interests
The authors declare no financial conflicts of interest but state they were involved in the development of the CL-NWR and therefore have a non-financial interest in the work. Funding is attributed to City, St George's, University of London.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 92% 'useful' rating as evidence that the CL-NWR is a validated, ready-to-use clinical diagnostic tool. This is a survey of self-selected users (predominantly researchers who already had the test), not an efficacy or diagnostic-accuracy study. The test still has no norms, and the authors themselves note that the simple syllable design may reduce sensitivity in older children and adults.